• 专利附录
  • 专利说明
  • 权利要求
  • 类似技术
  • 同族专利
  • 引用文献
  • 法律状态
  • 优先权
    • 专利摘要:
    A method in accordance with certain embodiments includes receiving input parameters specifying fretting requirements, electronically evaluating training data associated with target training, and using a computer processor to generate dynamically a fracturing plan for at least one of the plurality of boreholes in the target formation. The plan includes potential fracture locations and lengths that take into account existing or planned fracture locations with other of the plurality of boreholes and that also consider input parameters received and training data evaluated. . The method also includes fracturing the target formation along the plurality of boreholes in accordance with the fracturing plan.
    公开号:FR3027050A1
    申请号:FR1558626
    申请日:2015-09-15
    公开日:2016-04-15
    发明作者:Richard Daniel Colvin；Dewayne Edward Pratt；Steven Paul Crockett
    申请人:Landmark Graphics Corp；
    IPC主号:
    专利说明:

    [0001] AUTOMATED FRACTURING PLANNING METHODS FOR HISTORIC MULTI-WELL FIELDS Many efforts have been made to develop technologies that efficiently extract the largest amount of hydrocarbon products from a given oil field. For example, many wells are often dug close to each other to improve yield. Often, extraction from wells in low permeability ("tight") formations can be enhanced by creating and opening fractures around each well by a process known as hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as "fracturing". . This method of fracturing the rocks surrounding the well effectively widens the reach of the well and allows the fluids, which otherwise would have difficulty flowing through the pores of the rock, to flow rather through the fractures and into the wells. well. But such fracturing can be problematic with wells near each other, since the low impedance flow paths between the different wells ("short circuit") create undesirable pressure gradients that prevent to have optimal hydrocarbon yield rates. In order to prevent any possibility of short circuit formation, the spacing between the wells and the fracturing spacing are generally kept at values that minimize all inter-well interactions, which potentially result in inefficient reservoir drainage. This conservative strategy is more motivated by the perceived need to limit the astronomical amount of training data that will need to be analyzed in depth, in a time-constrained drilling context, and where drillers and production want to maintain a 1 3027050 drilling control and adaptability and performance parameters and specifications. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES Thus, it is disclosed in the accompanying drawings and in the following description, automated fracturing planning methods and systems for creating fracturing planes that allow easy adaptation to parameters while accommodating available model information and taking into account the potential interactions of several wells in close proximity to one another. In the figures: FIG. 1 is a schematic view of an illustrative drilling environment in accordance with the embodiments; Fig. 2 is a flowchart of an illustrative surface control and monitoring system, in accordance with the embodiments; Fig. 3 is a sectional view of an illustrative fractured borehole, in accordance with the embodiments; Fig. 4A is a perspective view of an illustrative multi-well development describing zipper fractures in accordance with the embodiments; Fig. 4B is a top view of a multiwell development of FIG. 4A, in accordance with the embodiments; Fig. 5A is a flowchart of an illustrative algorithm for the development of the aforementioned multi-well zipper fracturing plans, in accordance with the embodiments; and Figs. 5B and 5C are illustrative tables and zipper fracturing plans in association with the illustrative algorithm of FIG. 5A, in accordance with the embodiments. It should be understood, however, that the specific embodiments presented in the illustrations and the detailed description do not limit the disclosure. Rather, they provide the foundation for one skilled in the art to discern alternative forms, equivalents, and modifications that are encompassed by one or more of the embodiments within the scope of the appended claims. DETAILED DESCRIPTION The obstacles summarized above are overcome, at least in part, by the techniques disclosed for the development of multi-well zipper fracturing plans. A Multi-Well Zip Fracturing Plan is a plan that describes how each of the multiple neighboring boreholes must be fractured, with the locations and lengths of such fractures. In some embodiments, a computer algorithm for developing such zipper fracturing planes includes grouping fractured and non-fractured boreholes into groups. The fractured drill holes are then analyzed in series to identify the presence of adjacent, unfractured drill holes. Such non-fractured boreholes are investigated to determine if and how they can be zipped fractured in accordance with the parameters mentioned, data on field formation near the borehole, and fractures, existing or planned, which are adjacent to the unfractured borehole. Once a plane is drawn for the non-fractured borehole, the borehole is classified as a fractured borehole. In order to provide context and facilitate the understanding of the present disclosure, FIG. 1 shows an illustrative drilling environment in which a drilling platform 102 supports a derrick 104 having a movable muffle 106 for raising and lowering the drill string 108. A top driven motor 110 supports and pivots the train. Drill 108 when lowered into the borehole 112. The rotation of the drill string, alone or 3027050 in conjunction with the operation of a downhole motor, drives the drill bit 114 to extend the hole. drilling. Drill bit 114 is a component of a bottom hole structure (BHA) 116 which may also include a rotational orientation system (RSS) 118 and a stabilizer 120 (or other form of orientation structure). with drill collars and logging tools. A pump 122 circulates the drilling fluid through a feed pipe to the top drive 110, at the bottom of the hole through the interior of the drill string 108, through orifices in the drill bit 114. and to the surface through the ring around the drill string 108, and into a retention pond 124. The drilling flow transports the cuttings from the borehole 112 to the retention pond 124 and helps to maintain the integrity of the borehole. An upper portion of the borehole 112 is stabilized with a tubing string 113 and the lower portion that is drilled is an open (non-tubed) borehole.
    [0002] The drill collars in BHA 116 are generally thick-walled steel pipe sections that provide weight and rigidity to the drilling process. Thick walls are also convenient sites for the installation of logging instruments that measure downhole conditions, various drilling parameters, and features of the formations penetrated by the borehole. The BHA 116 also generally includes a navigation tool including instruments for measuring the orientation of the tool (eg, multi-component magnetometers and accelerometers) and a control submarine with a transmitter and a receiver. telemetry. The control submarine coordinates the operation of various logging instruments, steering mechanisms and drill motors, in accordance with commands received from the surface, and transmits a telemetry data stream to the surface to communicate relevant measures and status information, as appropriate. A corresponding telemetry receiver and transmitter are placed on or near the drilling platform 102 to complete the telemetry link. The most popular telemetry link is based on the modulation of the flow of the drilling fluid to create pressure pulses that propagate along the drill string ("muddy phase telemetry" or "MPT"), but other known telemetry are appropriate. Most of the data obtained by the control submarine can be stored in memory for later access, eg, when the BHA 116 physically returns to the surface. A surface interface 126 serves as the center for communication through the telemetry link and for communication with various sensors and control mechanisms on the platform 102. A data processing unit (illustrated in Fig. 1 a) form of a computer tablet 128) communicates with the surface interface 126 via a wired or unconnected link 130, collecting and processing measurement data to generate logs and other visual representations of the acquired data and derived models 15 to facilitate the analysis by a user. The data processing unit may take any suitable form, including one or more of: an integrated processor, a desktop computer, a laptop, a central processing center, and a virtual machine in the cloud. In each case, software on a non-transitory data storage medium may configure the processing unit to perform the desired processing, modeling, and imaging. FIG. 2 is a diagram of an illustrative surface control and a monitoring system 200. The system 200 includes a computer workstation 202 which contains electronic circuitry such as a processing logic 201 and a storage space. non-transitory information 203. The processing logic 201 is coupled to a screen 204 and input devices such as a keyboard 206 and a mouse 208. The processing logic 201 can read data from the storage medium, such as CD / DVD 214 and USB keys 216. Other input devices and storage media may also be used in association with workstation 202. Process logic 201 is coupled to one or more 210 databases via the Internet or a network 212. The databases 210 may be unified or distributed databases. The databases 210 may contain data usable by the methods described herein, such as formation data describing various characteristics, eg, rock permeability, mineral distribution and composition, formation boundaries, the surface characteristics of the formation, the type of rock formation, the fluid characteristics of the formation, etc., formations within which holes are drilled. In some embodiments, such information is contained at least in part in the storage 203 located within the workstation 202. The processing logic 201 can read and execute software that encodes the methods 500 (FIG. described with respect to the following Figures 5A-C) and any suitable variations, modifications and equivalents of these methods. CD / DVDs 214, USB sticks 216, database 210 and Internet / networks 212 may store some or all of the software coding for these methods. Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view of an illustrative fractured borehole 302. The illustrative borehole 302 has been fully excavated, all drilling equipment has been removed, and the borehole 302 has been cased by 20 tubes 304 and cemented to support the structural integrity and stability of the borehole 302. The borehole 302 is formed in the earth and, more precisely, through the target formation 300, which extends beyond the The target formation 300 may comprise multiple layers, each layer having a different type of rock formation, including the target formation containing the hydrocarbons within which the borehole is located. can extend horizontally for a certain distance. The tubing 304 contains multiple perforations 306 through which a fracturing fluid, such as water, is injected at high pressure into the target formation. The high pressure fluid injection creates open fractures 308 which extend laterally through the target formation. The high pressure fluid may contain additional chemicals and materials, such as a proppant (eg, sand) that maintains the structural stability of the fractures and prevents fractures from collapsing completely. Typically, the horizontal portions of the borehole are generally dug in parallel to the direction of maximum stress, causing the propagation of fractures generally perpendicular to the borehole. (Where fractures tend to propagate perpendicular to the direction of maximum stress, it can be expected that such propagation will occur at a predictable angle to the axis of the borehole when the drilling is not aligned with the direction of maximum stress). Layers above and below the formation tend to resist the spread of fracturing; therefore, the fractures tend to propagate laterally in the target formation at a length which depends on the speed and volume of the injected fracturing fluid. Thus, each fracture has a length 310 relative to the casing 304. Each fracture also has an initiation location 314 determined by the position of the perforation, which is generally measured relative to the distal end of the borehole 302. When a regular spacing is used, the perforations (and thus the fracturing initiation points) have a fixed spacing 312 between them. Although shown in the figures to be generally planar, actual fractures may be represented as a branched network having a shape and size that depends not only on the properties of the fracturing injection flow, but also on the nature of the fracture injection flow. rocks and formation materials of the target formation. Thus, the shapes and sizes of the fracture are not limited to those shown in Figure 3. Figure 4A is a perspective view of an illustrative multi-well development having a scheme that may be desirable for improved production. hydrocarbons. Specifically, target formation 300 contains 7,302,705 multiple boreholes 400, 402, and 404. Each of these drill holes having been fractured in the form of a zipper 400 interleaved alternately with the fractures associated with borehole 402. The zipper nature of these fractures is more readily illustrated in the downward view given in Figure 4B. The zipper fractures illustrated in FIGS. 4A-4B do not overlap and have no other apparent defect that interfered with hydrocarbon drainage from boreholes 400, 402, and 404. The multiwell fields that do not have not yet been fully fractionated, however, can present many challenges that make it difficult to obtain an equal zipper fracturing scheme illustrated in FIGS. 4A-4B. Some of these challenges include formations with hostile material characteristics; adjacent, non-parallel boreholes that complicate even zipper fracturing despite the fact that the fractures along each borehole are equally spaced; pre-existing drill holes that have already been fractionated differently from how the oil field operator wishes to split the remaining drill holes adjacent to the pre-existing drill hole; and specified parameters (eg, desired lengths, location, and spacing of fracturing) that may be difficult to meet in a given set of drilling conditions. Illustrative method 500 illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 5A provides an illustrative solution to these challenges. In particular, method 500 embodies an automated technique for generating an integrated fracturing plane for a multiwell field in which some boreholes already exist and have already been split. The method 500 is also useful for generating a zoned fracturing plane for a multi-well field in which some boreholes do not yet exist but have been predicted and whose fracturing plan would be impractical to modify.
    [0003] The method 500 may be encoded as software, eg, a computer readable medium 214 or 216 as illustrated in Figure 2. Such software may also be stored in unified databases or distributed 210 or on a workstation 202 itself. The method 500 may be performed exclusively by processing logic executing software, even though parts of the method 500 may be made by a human. In implementing the software, method 500 allows a computer to quickly account for a tremendous amount of formation data, input parameters, and other variables in the development of fracturing planes. Referring now to Figures 2 and 5A, method 500 begins with receiving or evaluating input parameters and training data (step 502). The input parameters and training data may be communicated to the computer workstation 202 via input devices (eg, keyboard 206 and mouse 208), using a computer readable medium (e.g. , CD / DVD 214 or a USB key 216), or via the Internet or a network 212. These input parameters specify the requirements with which the specific fractures of the drill holes must conform. For example, and without limitation, input parameters may specify target lengths, spacing, and locations of certain fractures. The locations of the fractures are more specific than the fracture spacing since the locations specify absolute positions of the fractures while the spacing only specifies the relative positions of multiple fractures relative to each other. The input parameters may specify acceptable deviations from target lengths, spacing, and locations. Other types of input parameters are also contemplated. The formation data specifies features of the target formation 300 (shown in Figures 3, 4A and 4B), i.e., of the terrain surrounding the borehole. The training data includes, in some cases, a significant amount of information regarding the type of bed, which assists in its classification as an impervious layer or reservoir rock. Formation data may include, but is not limited to, rock permeability, porosity, mineral distributions and compositions, locations and paths of existing boreholes and predicted boreholes (with associated fracturing information all such drill holes), known hydrocarbon traps and pockets, hydrocarbon caches, and subsurface fluid contact locations, and physical and chemical properties of hydrocarbons and water in the formation. The software code associated with method 500 may be adjusted by one skilled in the art to process and utilize different types of training data that may be provided. Method 500 also includes identifying drill holes in target formations (step 504) and obtaining paths of such drill holes (step 506). As explained, such boreholes have already been dug or they can only be planned. This information may be provided with the training data of step 502, or this information may be provided independently of training data, eg, workstation 202 may access this information from the basics of training. data 210, from another source via the Internet or networks 212, or through storage devices 214 and / or 216 input devices 206 and / or 208. Once the input parameters, training data and information regarding existing or planned boreholes have been obtained, method 500 includes grouping the boreholes (step 508). More specifically, in some embodiments, the boreholes, whether existing or planned, are grouped (i.e., divided) into two lists. A list, the "Fragmented List", shown as "List A" in Figures 5A and 5B, identifies existing drill holes that have already been split and the 30 predicted boreholes with fracturing plans that can not or which 3027050 should not be modified. The other list, the "unfractionated" list, shown as "List B" in Figures 5A and 5B, identifies existing and planned drill holes that have not yet been split. Each list can identify drill holes in any desired order. Variations and equivalents of this enumeration technique are contemplated and are included in the scope of this disclosure. Method 500 then comprises determining that any one of the drill holes is present in List A (step 514). If so, the control of process 500 proceeds to step 510, described below. Otherwise, method 500 includes determining that any one of the drill holes is present in List B (step 516). If this is not the case, then all the drill holes have fracturing plans, and the process ends. Otherwise, method 500 includes planning for B-well borehole fracturing in accordance with input parameters and formation data and then transferring this borehole to list A (step 518). . The control method 500 then proceeds to step 510. The method 500 then comprises determining that the first borehole of the List A has an adjacent borehole somewhere in the B-List (step 510). Otherwise, the method includes determining that the fractional borehole at the top of List A has a physically adjacent, unfractioned borehole present somewhere in List B. In some embodiments, there are parallel (or substantially parallel) drill holes are adjacent to each other if the average distance between the parallel portions of the drill holes is between 1.2 and 2.2 times the distance of the fracturing that will be created between these drill holes. In some embodiments, the average distance between the parallel portions of the boreholes may be in a different range, e.g., and without limitation, between one and two times the length of the fracturing. In some embodiments, the average distance may be measured in a different manner, e.g. and without limitation, it may include only the distances between the parallel portions of the boreholes as measured at the beginning and end of such parallel portions. Other definitions of the term "adjacent" may also be used. If List B does not have such adjacent boreholes, the first drill hole in List A was removed from List A (Step 512). The borehole is removed from List A because the absence of an unbroken, adjacent drill hole in List B means that the borehole in List A contains fractures that have no adverse effects. on any non-fractional borehole in List B. Thus, the List A borehole has no immediate, apparent effect on any of the List B drill holes. and can thus be removed without problem from List A. The process control then proceeds to step 514. Input parameters, in contrast to training data, are generally requirements that fractures must conform to.
    [0004] For example, an input parameter may specify a target length of a given fracture and may also specify a range of acceptable length in the case where the target length is not attainable. The training data, on the other hand, is information about the information surrounding the borehole. Examples of training data are provided above and will not be repeated here. Training data, at least in some embodiments, are not specific requirements for fractures; rather, they provide information on the conditions in the landforms surrounding the borehole. The formation data are used here in tandem with input parameters and any other information available to determine an optimal fracturing plan. Simply by way of example, training data may indicate that formation close to a given hole in a borehole is particularly impervious and would be difficult to fracture properly. In this case, the processing logic implementing the method 500 may determine (eg, in step 520, described below) that the best thing would be to abandon the fracturing efforts of the terrain near the this given orifice with the target length and, rather, to choose a different fracturing length in the acceptable range -specified by the input parameters.
    [0005] Returning to Figure 5A, if the determination at step 510 is affirmative, that is, the first borehole that appears in List A has an adjacent borehole in List B, the process 500 includes determining that the adjacent borehole in List B can be zipped fractured in accordance with the input parameters (taking into account relevant formation data) without fracturing overlapping those of the first borehole in List A (step 520). Step 520 may be custom designed by a software programmer encoding process 500 in a number of ways. For example, the software implementing the method 500 may, in some embodiments, prioritize those requirements in which the non-overlap of the fractures may be greater than the satisfaction of the input parameters, and the satisfaction of the parameters. entry may have priority over adjustments to relevant training data. Similarly, method 500 may evaluate training data to determine if one or more input parameters may be satisfied or not. If the determination of step 520 is affirmative, the method 500 includes planning the adjacent B-hole fracture in accordance with the input parameters and training data and assuring that the fractures do not overlap (step 524). These components of step 520 may be prioritized and / or adjusted, as explained. Additional requirements may also be added. If the determination of step 520 is negative, however, method 500 includes determining that the problem identified in step 520 relates to formation surrounding the borehole or input parameters and spacing ( step 521). If the problem is with the formation, the method 500 includes solving the problem by making the necessary adjustments to the locations, lengths and spacing of the B-well borehole fracturing to compensate for the formation problem. (step 523). For example, instead of fracturing to a target length as specified in the input parameters, the formation data for the permeability of the rock adjacent to the borehole in List B may require length shorter fracture. All types of appropriate adjustments can be made, taking into account input parameters, information data, and fractures of surrounding drill holes. Control of process 500 then proceeds to step 536, described below. If it is determined that the problem in step 521 relates to the input parameters or fracture spacing, the method 500 includes determining that the spacing between fractures along the drill holes of the A Lists and B are dissimilar (step 522). (The default spacing for fractures along the borehole of List B represents the target spacing specified as input parameters.) The gap dissimilarity can be defined by the entity implementing the method 500 or writing the software that executes the process 500. Such a definition would explain not only the spacing of the fractures along the two drill holes, but also the lengths of the drill holes themselves, since a small Difference in spacing may be insignificant for smaller length drillholes compared to the longer borehole. If the drilling hole fracturing spacing is dissimilar (step 522), the method 500 comprises two possible courses of action. One possibility would be to adopt fracture spacing along the List A borehole for fractures along the B-well borehole (step 526). This option eliminates the problems associated with mismatching of the spacing, resulting in the formation of fractures interleaved equally with one another in a zipper in the two drill holes. In addition, method 500 includes using the target input parameter spacing (or a spacing within the acceptable range specified by the input parameters) for the B-well drill holes and the schedule planning. aligning the fractures of the two boreholes so that the spacing between the zipper fractures is more equal near the center of the fractures along the borehole of the List B (step 528). If the determination in step 522 is negative, method 500 includes determining that the drill holes in Lists A and B are parallel to each other (step 530). If they are parallel, it is likely that existing or planned fractures for the List A borehole are excessively long, and therefore the preceding 500 includes planning for fractures to be shorter in length (e.g. by adjusting the strength of the fracturing fluid used or by decreasing the amount of proppants used in the fracturing fluid) (step 532). If they are not parallel (step 530), the method 500 includes ensuring that the most even spacing of the fractures is at the ends of the drill holes that are closest to each other (step 534). This ensures that the portions of the boreholes where the fractures are not interleaved in an equal zipper fashion are also the portions of the drill holes that are furthest apart from each other, attenuating thus the effects of such unequal spacing and reducing the risk of overlapping fractures or other similar problems. Whether step 523, 524, 532 or 534 is performed, method 500 includes moving the adjacent borehole from List B to List A, since the fracturing plane for the borehole of List B has been developed (step 536). Control of process 500 then returns to step 510. Process 500 of Figure 5A illustrates how a zipper fracturing plane can be designed. In some embodiments, however, step 502 of method 500 is repeated one or more times to monitor changes in input parameters and training data. When identifying changes in input parameters or formation data, a part or process 500 in its entirety may be repeated to revise existing zipper fracturing plans to account for such changes. In this way, the software implementing the method 500, when executed by a processor, provides a "real-time" zipper fracturing plan that is dynamically updated each time the input parameters or the formation data is changed, thereby immediately demonstrating how such changes affect the zipper fracturing plane. Once a zipper fracturing plan has been designed based on a satisfactory set of input parameters and formation data, the plan is implemented by fracturing one or more boreholes in accordance with the plan. Figures 5B and 5C together show an illustrative implementation of the method 500. Specifically, Figure 5B illustrates the classification tables of the 550, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 562, 564, 566 and 568 fracturing. Figure 5C illustrates multi-well fracture planes in zippers 570, 572, 574 and 576 at various finishing stages (plan 576 being substantially complete). Each of these plans illustrates a drilling land 571 associated with the borehole A-F. As shown in plan 570, drill holes A, C and F are existing drill holes that are already fractured (or are planned boreholes that must be fractured as indicated). The fractures for the 25 boreholes A and C have a similar length, location, and spacing, while the fractures for the borehole F have a similar length but a different location / spacing. Table 550 reflects the fracturing state of each of the drill holes. Specifically, List A identifies drill holes A, C, and F as fractionated, and List B identifies drill holes B, D, and E as unfractioned.
    [0006] 16 3027050 Now refer to Plan 570, Table 550 and Figure 5A. The borehole B, which is unfractionated and belongs to List B, and adjacent to borehole A, which is fractionated and belongs to List A. Thus, step 510 of method 500 is determined to be yes. Further, since the fractures of the borehole B can be interfolded equally with the fractures of the boreholes A and C in accordance with the input parameters and the formation data, the responses to step 520 in the affirmative and the borehole B is fractionated accordingly (step 524, plan 572). Drill hole B is then re-classified as a split borehole and is thus moved from List B to the end of List A (step 536, Table 552). Process 500 then resumes at step 510, at which it is determined that the first borehole in List A, ie, borehole A, does not have an adjacent borehole in List B. Thus, borehole A is removed from List A and discarded as shown in Table 554. Drill hole C does not also count an adjacent borehole in List B, and therefore, it also, it is removed from List A and discarded as shown in Table 556. However, Drill Hole F has an adjacent borehole in List B, ie, the borehole. E (step 510). Assuming that the input parameters specify a fracture spacing identical to that of the A, B and C boreholes, the borehole E can not be split with the spacing mentioned in the input parameters due to the relatively wider spacing of the borehole F (plan 572). Therefore, one course of action would be to adopt the spacing already used in the borehole F (step 526), as shown in plan 574. Even though the spacing used to fracture the borehole E is not the same as the one mentioned in the input parameters, as far as possible, other input parameters must always be followed, the training data must always be taken into account and the overlaps with other fractures should be avoided. Drill hole E is then moved from List B towards the end of List A (step 536, Table 558). Since drill hole F does not have adjacent holes remaining in List B, it is rejected from List A (Step 512, Table 5,560). Drill hole B is removed from List A for the same reason (step 512, Table 562). However, the borehole E has an adjacent borehole in List B, i.e., the borehole D (step 510). The questioning at step 520 can not be answered in the affirmative because, if the target spacing referred to in the input parameters was adopted for drill hole D without any adjustment, the fracture spacing between drill holes D and E would be suboptimal. Thus, because the answer to the questioning in step 520 is negative, the questioning at step 521 is solved as a problem with the input parameters, and the questioning at step 522 is answered by the affirmative, the Method 500 includes adjusting fracture locations along the borehole D so that the spacing between the fractures of the drill holes D and E is more even towards the center of the boreholes, as shown in the plan 576. Drill hole D is then moved from List B down List A (step 536, Table 564). Since all the drill holes have now been included as part of the fracturing plan as shown in plan 576, the questioning at step 510 is answered for the E and D boreholes in the negative, they are both removed from List A, and method 500 is complete (Tables 566, 568). Several other variations and modifications will be apparent to the 25 specialists in the field once the aforementioned disclosure is well understood. For example, the steps illustrated in method 500 are merely illustrative. Various additions, deletions and other modifications can be made as desired and as appropriate. Likewise, all fracturing plans that are within the scope of this disclosure do not include a zipper scheme. The techniques described herein can be applied to both zipper and non-zipper fracturing schemes. It is contemplated that the following claims be interpreted to encompass all variations, modifications, and all such equivalents.
    权利要求:
    Claims (13)
    [0001]
    REVENDICATIONS1. What is claimed Fracturing method, comprising: receiving input parameters specifying the requirements of the fracturing; electronic evaluation of training data associated with a target training; using a computer processor to dynamically generate a fracturing plane for at least one of a plurality of boreholes (112) in the target formation, the plane including potential fracture locations and lengths taking into account the existing or planned fracture locations with the others of the plurality of boreholes (112) and also taking into account the input parameters received and the training data evaluated; and fracturing the target formation along the plurality of boreholes (112) in accordance with the fracturing plane.
    [0002]
    The method of claim 1, wherein the formation data is selected from the group consisting of: rock permeability, porosity, mineral distribution and content, formation boundaries, surface characteristics of the formation, the type of rock formation, the locations of fluid contacts beneath the surface, traps and pockets of known hydrocarbons, oil caches and the physical and chemical properties of hydrocarbons and water in the formation .
    [0003]
    The methods of claims 1 to 2, wherein the fracturing plan indicates a fracturing scheme that includes a set of interfold fractures associated with one of the plurality of adjacent, adjacent boreholes (112). 3027050 26
    [0004]
    The methods of claims 1 to 3, further comprising monitoring changes to the input parameters and data on the formation and dynamic modification of the fracturing plane in accordance with said modifications. 5
    [0005]
    The methods of claims 1 to 4, wherein the input parameters comprise the desired fracture length, the desired fracture gap information, or both.
    [0006]
    The method of claim 5, wherein the desired information on fracture spacing includes a minimum spacing parameter, a maximum spacing parameter, and a target spacing parameter.
    [0007]
    A dynamic fracturing method, comprising: receiving a desired fracture length and desired information about fracture spacing from an input source; 15 electronic evaluation of training data for target training from one or more databases; using a computer processor to dynamically generate a zipper fracturing plan for multiple boreholes (112) in said target formation based on the desired fracture length and desired information on the spacing of the the divide ; the use of a computer processor to monitor changes to the desired fracture length, desired information on fracture spacing and training data; the use of a computer processor for dynamically updating the zipped fracturing plane in accordance with said modifications; and fracturing the target formation along the plurality of boreholes (112) in accordance with the updated zipper fracturing plane.
    [0008]
    The method of claim 7, wherein using a computer processor to dynamically update the zipped fracturing plane includes updating said plan in real time.
    [0009]
    The methods of claims 7 to 8, wherein the fracturing of the target formation comprises the use of a zipper fracture scheme.
    [0010]
    10.Processes of claims 7 to 9, wherein the generation of the zipper fracturing plane comprises identifying the fractured borehole (112); identifying an unfractured borehole (112) adjacent to the fractured borehole (112); determining the locations of potential fractures along the unfractured borehole (112) that are interfaced in a zipper with fractures present along the fractured borehole (112), the locations of potential fractures being determined by the utilizing the desired fracture spacing information, locations of fractures present along the fractured borehole (112), and evaluated training data from one or more databases; and determining the fracture lengths of the potential fractures along the unfractured borehole (112), the lengths of the fracture being determined by the use of the desired fracture lengths received from the input source of the present fractures. along the fractured borehole (112). 3027050 28
    [0011]
    The method of claim 10, wherein determining the locations of potential fractures along the unfractured borehole (112) includes adopting the spacing that exists between the fractures present along the borehole (112). ) fractured. 5
    [0012]
    The method of claim 10, wherein determining the locations of potential fractures along the unfractured borehole (112) includes adopting the desired fracture spacing between the fractures along the borehole (112). ) non-fractured and aligning said fractures along the unfractured borehole (112), the fractures being present along the fractured borehole (112) so that the spacing between the fractures along the borehole (112) unfractured and adjacent fractures present along the fractured borehole (112) is most equal to the center of the series of fractures along the unfractured borehole (112).
    [0013]
    The method of claim 10, wherein, if the fractured borehole (112) and the unfractured borehole (112) are not parallel to each other, determining the locations of potential fractures along the unfractured borehole (112) includes ensuring that the ends of the fractured and unfractured boreholes (112) which are closest to each other have fractures which are interfolded to each other others with more equal spacing than for fractures along the ends of the fractured and unfractured boreholes (112) which are furthest apart from each other.
    类似技术:
    公开号 | 公开日 | 专利标题
    AU2011382642B2|2016-09-22|Geological monitoring console
    FR3027050A1|2016-04-15|AUTOMATED FRACTURING PLANNING METHODS FOR MULTI-WELL FIELDS
    EP2684078B1|2019-06-26|Methods and system of estimating formation parameters
    MX2009001262A|2009-02-11|Method and system for pore pressure prediction.
    WO2009034253A1|2009-03-19|Method, programme and computer system for scaling the modelling data for a hydrocarbon deposit
    CA3014573C|2019-11-12|Real-time optimization and visualization of parameters for drilling operations
    US11015433B2|2021-05-25|Bore trajectory system
    CN107075938A|2017-08-18|Looking around electromagnetic tools using forward sight improves geosteering inverting
    US20170002630A1|2017-01-05|Method of performing additional oilfield operations on existing wells
    FR3085053A1|2020-02-21|PREDICTION OF OIL TANK BEHAVIOR USING A PROXY FLOW MODEL TECHNICAL AREA
    FR3031131A1|2016-07-01|REAL-TIME PERFORMANCE ANALYZER FOR DRILLING OPERATIONS
    US20200363547A1|2020-11-19|Multi-z horizon auto-tracking
    FR3038933A1|2017-01-20|UNDER-PRESSURE DRILLING THROUGH VARIOUS LITHOLOGY TRAINING
    FR3086779A1|2020-04-03|MATCHING AN AUTOMATED PRODUCTION HISTORY USING BAYESIAN OPTIMIZATION
    FR3085404A1|2020-03-06|AUTOMATED OPTIMIZATION OF THE PENETRATION RATE FOR DRILLING
    CN110191999A|2019-08-30|Multilayer groundbed frontier distance | inverting carried out with multiple initial guess
    US20210355823A1|2021-11-18|Borehole Gravity Analysis For Reservoir Management
    FR3092691A1|2020-08-14|PLANNING A WELL CONFIGURATION USING GEOMECHANICAL PARAMETERS
    FR3037682A1|2016-12-23|
    FR3076316A1|2019-07-05|EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION OF COMPLEX THREE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATION RESULTS FOR REAL-TIME OPERATIONS
    同族专利:
    公开号 | 公开日
    WO2016060651A1|2016-04-21|
    FR3027050B1|2018-11-30|
    US10570704B2|2020-02-25|
    GB201703541D0|2017-04-19|
    CA2960137A1|2016-04-21|
    GB2544012A|2017-05-03|
    US20170284175A1|2017-10-05|
    AR101859A1|2017-01-18|
    CA2960137C|2019-03-12|
    引用文献:
    公开号 | 申请日 | 公开日 | 申请人 | 专利标题
    US20050125209A1|2003-12-04|2005-06-09|Soliman Mohamed Y.|Methods for geomechanical fracture modeling|
    US20080164021A1|2007-01-10|2008-07-10|Dykstra Jason D|Methods and systems for fracturing subterranean wells|
    US20130292124A1|2011-01-20|2013-11-07|Commonwealth Scientific And Industrial Research Organisation|Hydraulic fracturing|
    US20140048270A1|2012-08-20|2014-02-20|Texas Tech University System|Methods and Devices for Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Optimization: A Modification to Zipper Frac|
    WO2014121270A2|2013-02-04|2014-08-07|Board Of Regents, The University Of Texas System|Methods for time-delayed fracturing in hydrocarbon formations|
    US20140262232A1|2013-03-14|2014-09-18|Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.|Controlling Net Treating Pressure in a Subterranean Region|
    SE526372C2|2003-12-08|2005-08-30|Volvo Constr Equip Holding Se|Brake protection device, brake device and method for controlling the temperature of a brake|
    US8303600B2|2008-06-30|2012-11-06|Biomet C.V.|Targeting apparatus for use in a medical procedure|
    JP5457454B2|2009-11-13|2014-04-02|Ｊｘ日鉱日石金属株式会社|Cu-In-Ga-Se sputtering target and manufacturing method thereof|
    US8855988B2|2011-02-23|2014-10-07|Landmark Graphics Corporation|Method and systems of determining viable hydraulic fracture scenarios|
    RU2461026C1|2011-05-31|2012-09-10|Шлюмберже Текнолоджи Б.В.|Method of determining geometric characteristics of hydraulic fracture cracks|
    US8967262B2|2011-09-14|2015-03-03|Baker Hughes Incorporated|Method for determining fracture spacing and well fracturing using the method|
    AU2012364891B2|2012-01-13|2014-10-23|Landmark Graphics Corporation|Method and system of planning and/or drilling wellbores|
    WO2015084390A1|2013-12-06|2015-06-11|Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.|Fracture detection and characterization using resistivity images|
    US10408957B2|2014-09-12|2019-09-10|Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.|Analysis of microseismic supported stimulated reservoir volumes|
    US10487640B2|2014-10-17|2019-11-26|Landmark Graphics Corporation|Casing wear prediction using integrated physics-driven and data-driven models|US10487640B2|2014-10-17|2019-11-26|Landmark Graphics Corporation|Casing wear prediction using integrated physics-driven and data-driven models|
    RU2613713C1|2016-03-31|2017-03-21|Шлюмберже Текнолоджи Б.В.|Method of oil-bearing bed development|
    US20200341167A1|2019-04-29|2020-10-29|Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.|Complexity Index Optimizing Job Design|
    WO2021151120A1|2020-01-24|2021-07-29|Fu Xuebing|Methods for tight oil production through secondary recovery|
    法律状态:
    2016-07-25| PLFP| Fee payment|Year of fee payment: 2 |
    2017-07-26| PLFP| Fee payment|Year of fee payment: 3 |
    2018-04-13| PLSC| Publication of the preliminary search report|Effective date: 20180413 |
    2018-07-18| PLFP| Fee payment|Year of fee payment: 4 |
    2019-09-26| PLFP| Fee payment|Year of fee payment: 5 |
    2021-06-11| ST| Notification of lapse|Effective date: 20210506 |
    优先权:
    申请号 | 申请日 | 专利标题
    IBPCT/US2014/060520|2014-10-14|
    PCT/US2014/060520|WO2016060651A1|2014-10-14|2014-10-14|Automated fracture planning methods for multi-well fields|
    [返回顶部]